"What Are Little Girls Made Of?" TOS - by Brad on 08:21 26 Jun 2003
Last night, watching a Star Trek TOS, DVD they did it again. The 1966 episode "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" was another excellent one.
It deals with the central question of, what is a human being? What makes us human? It is a question we are still dealing with in more modern science fiction like cyberpunk.
Enterprise goes looking for Dr. Roger Korby, Nurse Chapel's fiance, who is on an archeological expedition that has not been heard from in 5 years.
They make contact with Korby and Kirk and Nurse Chapel beam down. They find that Korby has developed ultimate androids and hopes to populate the known universe with them.
Highlights:
1. The actor that played "Lurch" in the Adams Family TV show is in this one.
2. Pretty young actress in revealing outfit (at least in 1966 it was)
3. Kirk kisses pretty young android babe and she starts to swoon, becomes confused. Kirk detects emotion and uses that as leverage. Okay it is a male conceit that we can make the ladies fait with joy with just a kiss. However, it sure helps showing the hero as the romantic lead and not leave that to your chief engineer.
This makesme wonder: in many ways the character of Kirk is influenced by the pulp heros of the preceeding generation. I think you can see this many times in the Kirk character. Part of the problem with our contemporary thinking is that the concept of "the Hero" has lost favor, to be replaced with the philosphy of "everyone is a hero, everyone is a winner". I think we see that reflected in the writing and the characters of Enterprise, wherein now it takes 5 people to do the job of "the Hero". They take turns and share around what, in fiction, used to be done by one hero. As a society we have embraced our mediocrity, and that is reflected in the writing.
Archer - walks in and makes pompous sounding speeches
T'Pul - has to choose between loyalty to her own kind and loyalty to her comrads and devotion to what is right.
Trip - gets the girls
Weapons guy (I forget the name) - gets to be annoying
Hoshi - gets to be brave even when she is very very afraid
So first does anyone remember this episode? (If not I recommend it for renting.)
Second, am I on to something or am I totally off my rocker?
Last night, watching a Star Trek TOS, DVD they did it again. The 1966 episode "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" was another excellent one.
It deals with the central question of, what is a human being? What makes us human? It is a question we are still dealing with in more modern science fiction like cyberpunk.
Enterprise goes looking for Dr. Roger Korby, Nurse Chapel's fiance, who is on an archeological expedition that has not been heard from in 5 years.
They make contact with Korby and Kirk and Nurse Chapel beam down. They find that Korby has developed ultimate androids and hopes to populate the known universe with them.
Highlights:
1. The actor that played "Lurch" in the Adams Family TV show is in this one.
2. Pretty young actress in revealing outfit (at least in 1966 it was)
3. Kirk kisses pretty young android babe and she starts to swoon, becomes confused. Kirk detects emotion and uses that as leverage. Okay it is a male conceit that we can make the ladies fait with joy with just a kiss. However, it sure helps showing the hero as the romantic lead and not leave that to your chief engineer.
This makesme wonder: in many ways the character of Kirk is influenced by the pulp heros of the preceeding generation. I think you can see this many times in the Kirk character. Part of the problem with our contemporary thinking is that the concept of "the Hero" has lost favor, to be replaced with the philosphy of "everyone is a hero, everyone is a winner". I think we see that reflected in the writing and the characters of Enterprise, wherein now it takes 5 people to do the job of "the Hero". They take turns and share around what, in fiction, used to be done by one hero. As a society we have embraced our mediocrity, and that is reflected in the writing.
Archer - walks in and makes pompous sounding speeches
T'Pul - has to choose between loyalty to her own kind and loyalty to her comrads and devotion to what is right.
Trip - gets the girls
Weapons guy (I forget the name) - gets to be annoying
Hoshi - gets to be brave even when she is very very afraid
So first does anyone remember this episode? (If not I recommend it for renting.)
Second, am I on to something or am I totally off my rocker?
"What Are Little Girls Made Of?" TOS - by Arislyn on 10:39 26 Jun 2003
I remember that episode. Of course, I didn’t see it first run, but I got to see re-runs as I grew up.
“As a society we have embraced our mediocrity.”
I think it definitely has merit and I can see where you would draw that conclusion. It does seem like you don’t have defined “heroes” anymore unless you are talking about a comic book hero. And, even then, it can get fuzzy if you have a team. No longer does the story focus upon a single character and maybe two or three major supporting characters. Rather, everything is spread out among the entire cast, giving everyone a chance to explore their own strengths and weaknesses as human beings (or non-humans
) equally.
I don’t necessarily think that is a bad thing, though. Realistically, no one is perfect and no one person can handle all the responsibility/pressure that would come with the job of space exploration alone, imo. However, it does take away some of the feel of the fantastic, doesn’t it? There comes a time when you crave an epic hero, like Flash Gordon, *takes a moment to grin as the Queen version of the theme song runs through her head “Flash! Ahhh-aaaah…Flash!* and there just doesn’t seem to be one out there anymore. There’s no more running to the rescue and giving Ming the Merciless the ol’ sucker punch and then whisking off with the girl.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that maybe it’s not so much about embracing our mediocrity as it is about exploring the team, rather than the hero i.e, the “hero” is the team. All they’ve done is taken the hero and split him upon into different people. Now, this gives the viewer a bit more variety than before. Rather than always watching Kirk do everything, you get to see the same issues and conflicts but with a bit more/different personality than before. It also gives the writers more background to work with so there is a possibility for other events to occur that wouldn’t happen if you were only focusing on one or two characters.
Hehe! I think I’m rambling now. I’ll be quiet and see what everyone else thinks….
I remember that episode. Of course, I didn’t see it first run, but I got to see re-runs as I grew up.
“As a society we have embraced our mediocrity.”
I think it definitely has merit and I can see where you would draw that conclusion. It does seem like you don’t have defined “heroes” anymore unless you are talking about a comic book hero. And, even then, it can get fuzzy if you have a team. No longer does the story focus upon a single character and maybe two or three major supporting characters. Rather, everything is spread out among the entire cast, giving everyone a chance to explore their own strengths and weaknesses as human beings (or non-humans
) equally.I don’t necessarily think that is a bad thing, though. Realistically, no one is perfect and no one person can handle all the responsibility/pressure that would come with the job of space exploration alone, imo. However, it does take away some of the feel of the fantastic, doesn’t it? There comes a time when you crave an epic hero, like Flash Gordon, *takes a moment to grin as the Queen version of the theme song runs through her head “Flash! Ahhh-aaaah…Flash!* and there just doesn’t seem to be one out there anymore. There’s no more running to the rescue and giving Ming the Merciless the ol’ sucker punch and then whisking off with the girl.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that maybe it’s not so much about embracing our mediocrity as it is about exploring the team, rather than the hero i.e, the “hero” is the team. All they’ve done is taken the hero and split him upon into different people. Now, this gives the viewer a bit more variety than before. Rather than always watching Kirk do everything, you get to see the same issues and conflicts but with a bit more/different personality than before. It also gives the writers more background to work with so there is a possibility for other events to occur that wouldn’t happen if you were only focusing on one or two characters.
Hehe! I think I’m rambling now. I’ll be quiet and see what everyone else thinks….
"What Are Little Girls Made Of?" TOS - by Brad on 11:29 26 Jun 2003
I kind of like a little of both. Teams are great, but I also like to have a hero to believe in. I think we have gone to far the other way in our popular culture.
I really do think that a part of this comes from our own inability to form a consensous on what "great" is, on what virtue is, on who is a great man or woman. We no longer erect statues to great men because we are muddled as to what qualities make one great. We debase the term hero by applying it to celebs, sports figures and others who might have talent but are not really heros.
This effects our thinking in our fiction and pop-culture. I'm trying to identify if this is why ST and a lot of other SF has jumped the tracks.
I kind of like a little of both. Teams are great, but I also like to have a hero to believe in. I think we have gone to far the other way in our popular culture.
I really do think that a part of this comes from our own inability to form a consensous on what "great" is, on what virtue is, on who is a great man or woman. We no longer erect statues to great men because we are muddled as to what qualities make one great. We debase the term hero by applying it to celebs, sports figures and others who might have talent but are not really heros.
This effects our thinking in our fiction and pop-culture. I'm trying to identify if this is why ST and a lot of other SF has jumped the tracks.
"What Are Little Girls Made Of?" TOS - by Arislyn on 11:43 26 Jun 2003
Ugh! I agree with you 200% on the whole celeb hero issue. I understand that what they do is important...as a society we need entertainment. However, the term "hero" should be reserved for people who do something that truly matters...such as firefighters, police, teachers, doctors....people who aid us as a society or who risk their lives to protect the rest of us.
Okay, that sounds wrong. It's not that actors/atheletes/etc. don't matter or don't contribute to society it's just that....ehhhhh...*tries to think how to put it that doesn't sound either wishy-washy or bad*....I don't know. I hope you know what I'm trying to say, here.
I think you are right, though. And, I think my above waffling proves your point exactly. We don't have a good definition of what makes a hero anymore.
Ugh! I agree with you 200% on the whole celeb hero issue. I understand that what they do is important...as a society we need entertainment. However, the term "hero" should be reserved for people who do something that truly matters...such as firefighters, police, teachers, doctors....people who aid us as a society or who risk their lives to protect the rest of us.
Okay, that sounds wrong. It's not that actors/atheletes/etc. don't matter or don't contribute to society it's just that....ehhhhh...*tries to think how to put it that doesn't sound either wishy-washy or bad*....I don't know. I hope you know what I'm trying to say, here.
I think you are right, though. And, I think my above waffling proves your point exactly. We don't have a good definition of what makes a hero anymore.
"What Are Little Girls Made Of?" TOS - by MoonHunter on 03:59 27 Jun 2003
Wow... so much fodder for thought....
This episode is one of my favorites. It has everything a good episode needs. It made quite an impact upon me when I was really small. An impact that continues to this day.
Now for the more intellectual points..
Kirk is a typical Pulp Hero. He is larger than life, Better at most thing than most people, principled, and physically able to handle any challange. This kind of hero is dated, but still used today. (See an Arnie Movie.) Though without the 60s social view of strong men and weak women.
However, today we have some problems with the "hero" of the Kirk mold. As a culture, we like to tear our heroes down... they remind us that we are merely shmucks and they are heroes. They took the risks.. they got the rewards. We took our risks and failed, or were too cowardly to take the risks to get reward. They have principles, we generally have sold out. While heroes inspire us, they also taunt us.
In fiction, there are two reasons not to have a true hero as The Protagonists. First: If you have a one true hero, and people don't like the character... the story fails. So multiple heroes has the advantage. By having a group, you have have more modern "lesser heroes". This allows you to tell different stories with each hero. Since each is not quite a full hero, there is no reason to expect them to save the day.
That brings us the Japanese concept of hero. Of course the Good Looking, Strong, Smart, guy will save the day. To the Japanese mind that is a given. That is why your average anime hero is short, dark, and neurotic. A flawed hero or a hero of less than heroic stock is more interesting to them... and now to us as well.
Thoughts?
Wow... so much fodder for thought....
This episode is one of my favorites. It has everything a good episode needs. It made quite an impact upon me when I was really small. An impact that continues to this day.
Now for the more intellectual points..
Kirk is a typical Pulp Hero. He is larger than life, Better at most thing than most people, principled, and physically able to handle any challange. This kind of hero is dated, but still used today. (See an Arnie Movie.) Though without the 60s social view of strong men and weak women.
However, today we have some problems with the "hero" of the Kirk mold. As a culture, we like to tear our heroes down... they remind us that we are merely shmucks and they are heroes. They took the risks.. they got the rewards. We took our risks and failed, or were too cowardly to take the risks to get reward. They have principles, we generally have sold out. While heroes inspire us, they also taunt us.
In fiction, there are two reasons not to have a true hero as The Protagonists. First: If you have a one true hero, and people don't like the character... the story fails. So multiple heroes has the advantage. By having a group, you have have more modern "lesser heroes". This allows you to tell different stories with each hero. Since each is not quite a full hero, there is no reason to expect them to save the day.
That brings us the Japanese concept of hero. Of course the Good Looking, Strong, Smart, guy will save the day. To the Japanese mind that is a given. That is why your average anime hero is short, dark, and neurotic. A flawed hero or a hero of less than heroic stock is more interesting to them... and now to us as well.
Thoughts?
"What Are Little Girls Made Of?" TOS - by Brad on 08:12 27 Jun 2003
I think there are some very good points in there. The anti-hero started really coming into the culture during the Vietnam War. This is a reflection of the new found cynicism, guilt, self-doubt and self-loathing of that time and continuing on to today.
I agree that, as a society, we like to tear down our heros. And this dovetails in with society not being able to form a consensous as to who a hero is and what is heroic anymore.
Add in all the other points from MH and Arislyn and it looks pretty bleak.
Nothing is absolute, there are times when I really like the ensemble approach, I thought DS9 did it well. I also like flawed heros etc. But I would not mind seeing a few more, good pulp archtypes crop up now and then.
I think there are some very good points in there. The anti-hero started really coming into the culture during the Vietnam War. This is a reflection of the new found cynicism, guilt, self-doubt and self-loathing of that time and continuing on to today.
I agree that, as a society, we like to tear down our heros. And this dovetails in with society not being able to form a consensous as to who a hero is and what is heroic anymore.
Add in all the other points from MH and Arislyn and it looks pretty bleak.
Nothing is absolute, there are times when I really like the ensemble approach, I thought DS9 did it well. I also like flawed heros etc. But I would not mind seeing a few more, good pulp archtypes crop up now and then.
"What Are Little Girls Made Of?" TOS - by Arislyn on 11:12 27 Jun 2003
Eh, I don't think it's all that bleak.
All you have to remember is that everything changes. What was in will go out and what was out will come back in. Everything cycles around.
Sure, we're in a period where we're tearing down the hero but give it a few years and people will start to feel exactly as you do. They will say, "Dang it! I want something/someone to believe in!" and they will rebuild the hero into something more and better, something that is not necessarily realistic, but something to strive towards.
Now, those morals/goals/etc. will be different depending on who is creating the hero, but you can bet that he'll be a little larger than life. He will swagger and will do all the things that we only wish we could. He'll save the world. He'll win the girl. And he'll eat candybars while he does it 'cause he's just that kind of cool.
It'll all come back around....all it takes is time.
Eh, I don't think it's all that bleak.
All you have to remember is that everything changes. What was in will go out and what was out will come back in. Everything cycles around.
Sure, we're in a period where we're tearing down the hero but give it a few years and people will start to feel exactly as you do. They will say, "Dang it! I want something/someone to believe in!" and they will rebuild the hero into something more and better, something that is not necessarily realistic, but something to strive towards.
Now, those morals/goals/etc. will be different depending on who is creating the hero, but you can bet that he'll be a little larger than life. He will swagger and will do all the things that we only wish we could. He'll save the world. He'll win the girl. And he'll eat candybars while he does it 'cause he's just that kind of cool.
It'll all come back around....all it takes is time.